>> >1- Remove HTTP SOAP Header all together. >> >2- Keep HTTP Soap Header but define firm rules for its content. > >The header is useful as a hint to existing transports. Yes, and there is nothing that prevents similar information to be carried in other places for other bindings. >It could be made MORE useful but should it track the header >element or the SOAP version? It is also arguably redundant, >duplicating either data in the header or in the MIME content-type. One could have overloaded the media type but that would be suspect because the media type doesn't imply any action whereas the SOAPAction header field does. >I think we should leave it as-is, since it seems to strike a >compromise. I agree with this - note that my rewording proposal doesn't in fact change anything - it tries to clarify some of the edge cases that were not described in the current SOAP/1.1 HenrikReceived on Thursday, 26 April 2001 12:55:10 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:41:43 GMT